Elliptical vs. Bike
- 04-04-2005, 11:22 PM
Elliptical vs. Bike
It seems like I can burn twice the amount of calories on the elliptical compared to a bike in the same amount of time. I also don't feel like i'm working as hard on the elliptical for those calories as I am on the bike. How accurate is it that elliptical machines burn more calories than a stationary bike within the same time period? Is it because it's more of a full body workout?
- 04-05-2005, 01:13 AM
I read somewhere that the newer cardio machines were quite optimistic in their power calculations - sorry don't have it on hand.
If you don't feel like you are working as hard then you probably aren't. Energy conservation laws say that to produce more energy you have to consume more fuel. More fuel needs more O2. More O2 needs faster heart rate and breathing.
- 04-05-2005, 10:16 AM
i personally don't use anything other than the treadmill .. but just keep your heartrate at 65% of its max and you'll be fine regardless if you're on the bike or the elliptical
04-05-2005, 10:21 AM
I use a combination of bike and treadmill (2.5mph at 15 degree incline).
Treadmill at the gym and bike at home.
Both get the job done but I have a feeling (purely anecdotal) that the bike is actually better only for the fact YOU must power it for it to move. With the treadmill, it powers you. Slight difference and just something I've noticed.
Besides, I like to switch it up as to not get overly bored.
04-05-2005, 01:40 PM
thought you were an advocate of HIIT? I just can't do low intensity, I hate it. Everytime I try it I feel like i'm not working hard enough and always speed upOriginally Posted by glenihan
04-05-2005, 02:32 PM
04-05-2005, 03:05 PM
There are currently no metabolic equations for elliptical machines. I agree with size that the ones on the machines are estimates and nothing more. Just buy a HR monitor and go with that.
04-05-2005, 04:14 PM
i used to be but i read a number of studies posted by bobo and lean one that showed when combined with regular weight training, low intensity cardio was better .. i've been using it since i started dieting 7 weeks ago and its worked like magicOriginally Posted by KCPreki11
04-05-2005, 06:19 PM
65% of MHR is good to keep muscle and burn fat. I usually hit that mark on the treadmill after a weight training session. But on days when its just cardio I incorporated a HIIT style routine. I don't lose muscle and I feel a lot better and burn a ton of calories. I feel if you want great results whether cutting body fat or building muslce you have to work hard and bust ass to get it done.
Lets not forget the heart is a muscle as well and an important one at that. And I mean what happens if the Cops are chasing me on foot? I gotta be able to sprint man.
04-07-2005, 06:03 PM
Good call on the HR monitor. I used one today and their sweet. BTW, the machine I was on was constantly giving me a HR readout that was off from my HR monitor by at least 8.Originally Posted by DieTrying
04-12-2005, 02:40 AM
m&f had a pretty good article about 6 months ago testing all the cardio machines to see how they matched up. the elliptical with the arm movement bars burned the most calories per hour . stairmaster was very close to the elliptical followed by the treadmill and then the bike. after the article was done they had normal chores and how many calories you burn per hour doing them.........i forgot all the chores and numbers but i do remember that shoveling snow blew away all the cardio machines and chores put together when it comes to burning calories, so this winter NO SNOW BLOWERS!:-)Originally Posted by KCPreki11
04-12-2005, 01:53 PM
I know we are talking about the calorie counters here..but what about the Heart Rate "handles" that the precor machines have? You think they are accurate?
I mean 65% of my max hr is around 127. A few weeks ago I got into the gym..did nothing yet, checked my HR out on one and it said I was right about at 126. I mean I was on either ECA or Clen at the time, but i mean i doubt im at my target hr before i even did anything.
04-12-2005, 02:07 PM
I'm referring to an elliptical machine. I'm pretty sure it was Precor as well.Originally Posted by KCPreki11
04-12-2005, 03:58 PM
Some are more accurate than others. If you buy a POLAR HR monitor they are pretty damn accurate... my professors rely on them when conducting research. Another thing about your reply is that you calculated your max HR based on the Karvonen formula (220-age), which is also a very rough estimate. I did a VO2max (and it really was a max test) test a few weeks ago and my HR never went above 179, and I'm 21 years old (220-21= 199). Everybody is different.Originally Posted by hamper19
But OTOH, it could be the clen
04-12-2005, 04:19 PM
I've been on the precor and have gotten the hr to say 190+, which is why i don't think it is very accurate. It is a rough idea, but I wouldn't trust my gym to give me a max V02 test.
Similar Forum Threads
- By true_c in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 12-07-2002, 09:14 AM
- By scotty2 in forum SupplementsReplies: 3Last Post: 12-03-2002, 09:32 PM
- By Kay in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 11-27-2002, 03:24 PM
- By Kay in forum Weight LossReplies: 10Last Post: 11-21-2002, 03:26 PM
- By MassMachine in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 10-30-2002, 04:13 PM